QTR-Quadtone RIP

Hi,

I'm just starting out with QuadTone RIP on an Epson R2400 with standard Epson UC inks, and 
intend to use Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl. There are no profiles for this paper in the 
QuadTone RIP distribution, so it looks like I'll have to make my own. Two questions:

* Does anyone on the list have curves for this printer/paper/ink combination?

* If not, which of the supplied profiles would get me closest as a starting point?

Many thanks

Guy Brown

With the 2400 just use Epson's ABW plus QTR CreateIcc.
Works a treat and no messing around with curves.

Mike


On 07/11/2007, guyxbrown <guyxbrown@...> wrote:
>
>   Hi,
>
> I'm just starting out with QuadTone RIP on an Epson R2400 with standard
> Epson UC inks, and
> intend to use Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl. There are no profiles for this
> paper in the
> QuadTone RIP distribution, so it looks like I'll have to make my own. Two
> questions:
>
> * Does anyone on the list have curves for this printer/paper/ink
> combination?
>
> * If not, which of the supplied profiles would get me closest as a
> starting point?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Guy Brown
>
> 
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mike

Not quite sure what you mean...create a profile using
the QTR create ICC using the settings of ABW...?  I
use piezography with the 2400 most of the time but the
idea of using QTR with the HFA is attractive too.

Dave
--- Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:

> With the 2400 just use Epson's ABW plus QTR
> CreateIcc.
> Works a treat and no messing around with curves.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> On 07/11/2007, guyxbrown <guyxbrown@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >   Hi,
> >
> > I'm just starting out with QuadTone RIP on an
> Epson R2400 with standard
> > Epson UC inks, and
> > intend to use Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl. There are
> no profiles for this
> > paper in the
> > QuadTone RIP distribution, so it looks like I'll
> have to make my own. Two
> > questions:
> >
> > * Does anyone on the list have curves for this
> printer/paper/ink
> > combination?
> >
> > * If not, which of the supplied profiles would get
> me closest as a
> > starting point?
> >
> > Many thanks
> >
> > Guy Brown
> >
> > 
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Mike,

If I understand correctly, then I print a 21-step wedge via ABW mode with the ICC profile 
set to "same as source", and then read the density values off the printed step wedge and 
use these to create a linearised ICC profile with CreateIcc. I then print in ABW with the 
profile set to the one that I generated using CreateIcc. Correct?

This does seem like a nice way to go. However, I'd like the option to print split tones (e.g., 
cold shadows, warm highlights) and it seems that ABW doesn't allow this, just an overall 
change in the image colour thoughout the whole tonal range. 

Thanks again

Guy

>
> With the 2400 just use Epson's ABW plus QTR CreateIcc.
> Works a treat and no messing around with curves.
> 
> Mike
> 
>

On 07/11/2007, Guy Brown <guyxbrown@...> wrote:
>
>   Mike,
>
> If I understand correctly, then I print a 21-step wedge via ABW mode with
> the ICC profile
> set to "same as source", and then read the density values off the printed
> step wedge and
> use these to create a linearised ICC profile with CreateIcc. I then print
> in ABW with the
> profile set to the one that I generated using CreateIcc. Correct?
>

Yes correct. Very simple and repeatable luminosity across multiple papers.

   This does seem like a nice way to go. However, I'd like the option to
> print split tones (e.g.,
> cold shadows, warm highlights) and it seems that ABW doesn't allow this,
> just an overall
> change in the image colour thoughout the whole tonal range.
>

I disagree with the general view that ABW doesn't allow split toning. Yes it
doesn't have a split tone control panel,
but in practice you are limited in whatever toning you do by the paper
white, unless you preprint the whole page with a background colour.
So what you get with ABW is a tone from paper white to whatever toning you
select, so often it is effectively the same as a split tone.
For example if you print on premium luster with ABW you effectively get cool
highlights to neutral shadows. I am not convinced you can't replicate most
moderate split tones with ABW.
To get warm highlights and cool shadows you just start with a warm paper,
something like Ultrasmooth and print with a cool tone setting. Same applies
to QTR.

Just my 2c worth.

Mike








   Thanks again
>
> Guy
>
> >
> > With the 2400 just use Epson's ABW plus QTR CreateIcc.
> > Works a treat and no messing around with curves.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
>
> 
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

For the R2400 with UC inks there are profiles for SilverRag.  This is
pretty similar
to HFA Pearl so these profiles should give good results.  The main
difference in the
paper is that HFA Pearl is a cooler tone than SilverRag so you may
find you need a
little more of the "warm" or "sepia" curves with HFA Pearl paper.

Another post mentioned using the piezo inks on the R2400 -- so far the K7 inks
are not compatible with photo paper like Pearl.  They have new ones coming
called MPS Selenium that are compatible.

Roy

On 11/7/07, guyxbrown <guyxbrown@...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm just starting out with QuadTone RIP on an Epson R2400 with standard Epson UC inks, and
> intend to use Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl. There are no profiles for this paper in the
> QuadTone RIP distribution, so it looks like I'll have to make my own. Two questions:
>
> * Does anyone on the list have curves for this printer/paper/ink combination?
>
> * If not, which of the supplied profiles would get me closest as a starting point?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Guy Brown
>

Dear all,

I've followed Mike's advice and developed a few profiles for Epson's ABW driver using 
CreateICC and a borrowed Eye-one densitometer. The results on HFAP and Epson 
Semigloss are very good, with the latter giving a particularly good dmax of about 2.4 with 
the R2400 and photo black ink.

However, following the same procedure with the matt black ink on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag, 
I could only get lacklustre prints with a paltry dmax of about 1.6. I was very suprised, 
since colour prints on this paper made with the R2400 have good contrast and appear to 
have a reasonable black. I'm pretty sure that I'm not doing anything wrong. So the 
questions are:

* Should I expect a low dmax on photo rag with matt black on the R2400, printing using 
the ABW driver?

* If so, are results any better by using Quadtone RIP?

* Are there other "fine art" papers out there with a look and feel similar to photo rag that 
give a better dmax on the R2400?

Thanks

Guy

Guy,

So firstly, ABW puts down more ink than the colour driver, so you get the
best blacks with ABW.
But yes MK dmax is much higher then PK. But the exact value depends on the
actual paper and the Epson driver paper settings.

So question is what Epson paper setting are you using for Photo Rag?
I think Ultrasmooth puts down the most ink, VFA next and Textured Fine
Art the least.
I use Textured Fine Art ABW setting for Photo Rag on my 4800. I am on the
road so I can't tell you the dmax I get. But its going to be between 1.6 and
1.7.

You can try the different paper settings on your 2400 to see which gives you
the best black without laying down too much ink (blocking the shadows). Do
this by printing out the Create ICC step wedge, measure it and then before
you use Create ICC, plot the values on a graph and see if the shadows are
closing up like the end of a hockey stick or not. If they are then you are
putting down too much ink, try a different paper choice in the ABW driver.

Also I would use the normal setting for ABW not the darker setting. The both
have the same dmax, but normal gives Create ICC more headroom to manipulate
the shadows and I find a I get better shadows with normal.

Hope that all makes sense and helps.

Mike


On 20/11/2007, Guy Brown <guyxbrown@...> wrote:
>
>   Dear all,
>
> I've followed Mike's advice and developed a few profiles for Epson's ABW
> driver using
> CreateICC and a borrowed Eye-one densitometer. The results on HFAP and
> Epson
> Semigloss are very good, with the latter giving a particularly good dmax
> of about 2.4 with
> the R2400 and photo black ink.
>
> However, following the same procedure with the matt black ink on
> Hahnemuhle Photo Rag,
> I could only get lacklustre prints with a paltry dmax of about 1.6. I was
> very suprised,
> since colour prints on this paper made with the R2400 have good contrast
> and appear to
> have a reasonable black. I'm pretty sure that I'm not doing anything
> wrong. So the
> questions are:
>
> * Should I expect a low dmax on photo rag with matt black on the R2400,
> printing using
> the ABW driver?
>
> * If so, are results any better by using Quadtone RIP?
>
> * Are there other "fine art" papers out there with a look and feel similar
> to photo rag that
> give a better dmax on the R2400?
>
> Thanks
>
> Guy
>
> 
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mike,

> So question is what Epson paper setting are you using for Photo Rag?
> I think Ultrasmooth puts down the most ink, VFA next and Textured Fine
> Art the least.

I was using VFA. So I'll try the ultrasmooth setting - thanks.

> You can try the different paper settings on your 2400 to see which gives you
> the best black without laying down too much ink (blocking the shadows). Do
> this by printing out the Create ICC step wedge, measure it and then before
> you use Create ICC, plot the values on a graph and see if the shadows are
> closing up like the end of a hockey stick or not. If they are then you are
> putting down too much ink, try a different paper choice in the ABW driver.

Actually I saw this with the VFA setting - see figures below:

Step	Dens	Lab	A	B	
0.00	0.036	96.80	0.79	-1.23	-                        b    |  a                        L +
5.00	0.074	93.58	0.88	-1.05	-                        b    |  a                      L   +
10.00	0.121	89.68	0.90	-0.68	-                          b  |  a                   L      +
15.00	0.168	85.95	0.86	-0.40	-                           b |  a                 L        +
20.00	0.225	81.62	0.85	-0.24	-                            b|  a              L           +
25.00	0.281	77.52	0.79	-0.06	-                            b|  a            L             +
30.00	0.339	73.44	0.73	0.04	-                             b a           L               +
35.00	0.405	69.00	0.63	0.17	-                             b a        L                  +
40.00	0.474	64.63	0.51	0.24	-                             b a     L                     +
45.00	0.543	60.49	0.43	0.43	-                             |b    L                       +
50.00	0.618	56.19	0.18	0.83	-                             a  b                          +
55.00	0.700	51.79	-0.11	1.04	-                            a|L  b                         +
60.00	0.790	47.24	0.02	0.81	-                           L a  b                          +
65.00	0.889	42.63	-0.06	0.40	-                        L   a|b                            +
70.00	0.969	39.13	-0.04	0.19	-                      L     ab                             +
75.00	1.086	34.39	-0.05	0.11	-                   L        ab                             +
80.00	1.248	28.50	-0.07	0.01	-                L           ab                             +
85.00	1.403	23.53	0.03	0.02	-             L               b                             +
90.00	1.530	19.84	0.17	0.26	-          L                  ab                            +
95.00	1.607	17.80	0.43	0.96	-         L                   |a b                          +
100.00	1.619	17.47	0.76	2.11	-         L                   |  a    b                     +

As you say, the values bunch up in the shadows giving a "hockey stick" curve. I guess that 
I'll have to experiment with some different paper settings. 

> Also I would use the normal setting for ABW not the darker setting. The both
> have the same dmax, but normal gives Create ICC more headroom to manipulate
> the shadows and I find a I get better shadows with normal.

Thanks - I'm doing that already as it happens. 

Cheers

Guy

I would try textured fine art paper

On 20/11/2007, Guy Brown <guyxbrown@...> wrote:
>
>   Mike,
>
> > So question is what Epson paper setting are you using for Photo Rag?
> > I think Ultrasmooth puts down the most ink, VFA next and Textured Fine
> > Art the least.
>
> I was using VFA. So I'll try the ultrasmooth setting - thanks.
>
> > You can try the different paper settings on your 2400 to see which gives
> you
> > the best black without laying down too much ink (blocking the shadows).
> Do
> > this by printing out the Create ICC step wedge, measure it and then
> before
> > you use Create ICC, plot the values on a graph and see if the shadows
> are
> > closing up like the end of a hockey stick or not. If they are then you
> are
> > putting down too much ink, try a different paper choice in the ABW
> driver.
>
> Actually I saw this with the VFA setting - see figures below:
>
> Step Dens Lab A B
> 0.00 0.036 96.80 0.79 -1.23 - b | a L +
> 5.00 0.074 93.58 0.88 -1.05 - b | a L +
> 10.00 0.121 89.68 0.90 -0.68 - b | a L +
> 15.00 0.168 85.95 0.86 -0.40 - b | a L +
> 20.00 0.225 81.62 0.85 -0.24 - b| a L +
> 25.00 0.281 77.52 0.79 -0.06 - b| a L +
> 30.00 0.339 73.44 0.73 0.04 - b a L +
> 35.00 0.405 69.00 0.63 0.17 - b a L +
> 40.00 0.474 64.63 0.51 0.24 - b a L +
> 45.00 0.543 60.49 0.43 0.43 - |b L +
> 50.00 0.618 56.19 0.18 0.83 - a b +
> 55.00 0.700 51.79 -0.11 1.04 - a|L b +
> 60.00 0.790 47.24 0.02 0.81 - L a b +
> 65.00 0.889 42.63 -0.06 0.40 - L a|b +
> 70.00 0.969 39.13 -0.04 0.19 - L ab +
> 75.00 1.086 34.39 -0.05 0.11 - L ab +
> 80.00 1.248 28.50 -0.07 0.01 - L ab +
> 85.00 1.403 23.53 0.03 0.02 - L b +
> 90.00 1.530 19.84 0.17 0.26 - L ab +
> 95.00 1.607 17.80 0.43 0.96 - L |a b +
> 100.00 1.619 17.47 0.76 2.11 - L | a b +
>
> As you say, the values bunch up in the shadows giving a "hockey stick"
> curve. I guess that
> I'll have to experiment with some different paper settings.
>
> > Also I would use the normal setting for ABW not the darker setting. The
> both
> > have the same dmax, but normal gives Create ICC more headroom to
> manipulate
> > the shadows and I find a I get better shadows with normal.
>
> Thanks - I'm doing that already as it happens.
>
> Cheers
>
> Guy
>
> 
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Also I'd use the 51 step rather than 21.
21 is too small for good shadow seperation.

Mike


On 21/11/2007, Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
>
> I would try textured fine art paper
>
> On 20/11/2007, Guy Brown <guyxbrown@... > wrote:
> >
> >   Mike,
> >
> > > So question is what Epson paper setting are you using for Photo Rag?
> > > I think Ultrasmooth puts down the most ink, VFA next and Textured Fine
> > > Art the least.
> >
> > I was using VFA. So I'll try the ultrasmooth setting - thanks.
> >
> > > You can try the different paper settings on your 2400 to see which
> > gives you
> > > the best black without laying down too much ink (blocking the
> > shadows). Do
> > > this by printing out the Create ICC step wedge, measure it and then
> > before
> > > you use Create ICC, plot the values on a graph and see if the shadows
> > are
> > > closing up like the end of a hockey stick or not. If they are then you
> > are
> > > putting down too much ink, try a different paper choice in the ABW
> > driver.
> >
> > Actually I saw this with the VFA setting - see figures below:
> >
> > Step Dens Lab A B
> > 0.00 0.036 96.80 0.79 -1.23 - b | a L +
> > 5.00 0.074 93.58 0.88 -1.05 - b | a L +
> > 10.00 0.121 89.68 0.90 -0.68 - b | a L +
> > 15.00 0.168 85.95 0.86 -0.40 - b | a L +
> > 20.00 0.225 81.62 0.85 -0.24 - b| a L +
> > 25.00 0.281 77.52 0.79 -0.06 - b| a L +
> > 30.00 0.339 73.44 0.73 0.04 - b a L +
> > 35.00 0.405 69.00 0.63 0.17 - b a L +
> > 40.00 0.474 64.63 0.51 0.24 - b a L +
> > 45.00 0.543 60.49 0.43 0.43 - |b L +
> > 50.00 0.618 56.19 0.18 0.83 - a b +
> > 55.00 0.700 51.79 - 0.11 1.04 - a|L b +
> > 60.00 0.790 47.24 0.02 0.81 - L a b +
> > 65.00 0.889 42.63 -0.06 0.40 - L a|b +
> > 70.00 0.969 39.13 -0.04 0.19 - L ab +
> > 75.00 1.086 34.39 -0.05 0.11 - L ab +
> > 80.00 1.248 28.50 -0.07 0.01 - L ab +
> > 85.00 1.403 23.53 0.03 0.02 - L b +
> > 90.00 1.530 19.84 0.17 0.26 - L ab +
> > 95.00 1.607 17.80 0.43 0.96 - L |a b +
> > 100.00 1.619 17.47 0.76 2.11 - L | a b +
> >
> > As you say, the values bunch up in the shadows giving a "hockey stick"
> > curve. I guess that
> > I'll have to experiment with some different paper settings.
> >
> > > Also I would use the normal setting for ABW not the darker setting.
> > The both
> > > have the same dmax, but normal gives Create ICC more headroom to
> > manipulate
> > > the shadows and I find a I get better shadows with normal.
> >
> > Thanks - I'm doing that already as it happens.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Guy
> >
> > 
> >
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Also I'd use the 50 step rather than 21.
21 is too small for good shadow seperation.

Mike


On 21/11/2007, Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
>
> I would try textured fine art paper
>
> On 20/11/2007, Guy Brown <guyxbrown@...> wrote:
> >
> >   Mike,
> >
> > > So question is what Epson paper setting are you using for Photo Rag?
> > > I think Ultrasmooth puts down the most ink, VFA next and Textured Fine
> > > Art the least.
> >
> > I was using VFA. So I'll try the ultrasmooth setting - thanks.
> >
> > > You can try the different paper settings on your 2400 to see which
> > gives you
> > > the best black without laying down too much ink (blocking the
> > shadows). Do
> > > this by printing out the Create ICC step wedge, measure it and then
> > before
> > > you use Create ICC, plot the values on a graph and see if the shadows
> > are
> > > closing up like the end of a hockey stick or not. If they are then you
> > are
> > > putting down too much ink, try a different paper choice in the ABW
> > driver.
> >
> > Actually I saw this with the VFA setting - see figures below:
> >
> > Step Dens Lab A B
> > 0.00 0.036 96.80 0.79 -1.23 - b | a L +
> > 5.00 0.074 93.58 0.88 -1.05 - b | a L +
> > 10.00 0.121 89.68 0.90 -0.68 - b | a L +
> > 15.00 0.168 85.95 0.86 -0.40 - b | a L +
> > 20.00 0.225 81.62 0.85 -0.24 - b| a L +
> > 25.00 0.281 77.52 0.79 -0.06 - b| a L +
> > 30.00 0.339 73.44 0.73 0.04 - b a L +
> > 35.00 0.405 69.00 0.63 0.17 - b a L +
> > 40.00 0.474 64.63 0.51 0.24 - b a L +
> > 45.00 0.543 60.49 0.43 0.43 - |b L +
> > 50.00 0.618 56.19 0.18 0.83 - a b +
> > 55.00 0.700 51.79 - 0.11 1.04 - a|L b +
> > 60.00 0.790 47.24 0.02 0.81 - L a b +
> > 65.00 0.889 42.63 -0.06 0.40 - L a|b +
> > 70.00 0.969 39.13 -0.04 0.19 - L ab +
> > 75.00 1.086 34.39 -0.05 0.11 - L ab +
> > 80.00 1.248 28.50 -0.07 0.01 - L ab +
> > 85.00 1.403 23.53 0.03 0.02 - L b +
> > 90.00 1.530 19.84 0.17 0.26 - L ab +
> > 95.00 1.607 17.80 0.43 0.96 - L |a b +
> > 100.00 1.619 17.47 0.76 2.11 - L | a b +
> >
> > As you say, the values bunch up in the shadows giving a "hockey stick"
> > curve. I guess that
> > I'll have to experiment with some different paper settings.
> >
> > > Also I would use the normal setting for ABW not the darker setting.
> > The both
> > > have the same dmax, but normal gives Create ICC more headroom to
> > manipulate
> > > the shadows and I find a I get better shadows with normal.
> >
> > Thanks - I'm doing that already as it happens.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Guy
> >
> > 
> >
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Michael King" <drmrking@...> wrote:


> I disagree with the general view that ABW doesn't allow split
toning. Yes it
> doesn't have a split tone control panel,
> but in practice you are limited in whatever toning you do by the paper
> white, unless you preprint the whole page with a background colour.
> So what you get with ABW is a tone from paper white to whatever
toning you
> select, so often it is effectively the same as a split tone.
> For example if you print on premium luster with ABW you effectively
get cool
> highlights to neutral shadows. I am not convinced you can't
replicate most
> moderate split tones with ABW.
> To get warm highlights and cool shadows you just start with a warm
paper,
> something like Ultrasmooth and print with a cool tone setting. Same
applies
> to QTR.
> 
> Just my 2c worth.
> 
> Mike

Dear all,

Even though the scope of the post is the use of QTR with HFAP on an
R2400, I take the chance of your reference to the split tone feature
of the ABW mode and I want to ask you, what is the actual function of
the "Shadow Tonality", "Highlight Tonality" and "Highlight Point
Shift", if not that of a split toning effect?

And another thing. I have never tried the create icc profile of the
QTR mainly for the lack of a densitometer. So I mostly use it with the
ready curves in conjunction with Qimage and the print to file feature.
But I thought that the ABW mode is not supposed to be used together 
with an Icc profile since the first overwrites the second.
Is it not so, or how else you meant to use the two?

Zisis

On 22/11/2007, Zisis Kardianos <zissimos@...> wrote:
>
>
> >>Even though the scope of the post is the use of QTR with HFAP on an
> R2400, I take the chance of your reference to the split tone feature
> of the ABW mode and I want to ask you, what is the actual function of
> the "Shadow Tonality", "Highlight Tonality" and "Highlight Point
> Shift", if not that of a split toning effect?
>

There is a terminology issue here. If you read the manual you will see that
Epson means luminosity not colour tonality.

>>And another thing. I have never tried the create icc profile of the
QTR mainly for the lack of a densitometer. So I mostly use it with the
ready curves in conjunction with Qimage and the print to file feature.
But I thought that the ABW mode is not supposed to be used together
with an Icc profile since the first overwrites the second.
Is it not so, or how else you meant to use the two?

ABW and colour are just two different ways of using the Epson driver.
Profiles can be used for both in the same way. Its just that Epson doesn't
provide them tuned for ABW mode.

Mike










>

























  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]